UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DOMINIC DELFINO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00202-REP-1; 3:09-cv-00629-REP)

Submitted:

December 30, 2011

Decided:

January 9, 2012

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Dominic Delfino, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,

II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
James

Dominic

Delfino

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West

Supp.

2011)

motion.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28

U.S.C.

2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would

find

that

the

district

courts

assessment

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

of

the

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
states

right.

debatable
Slack,

529

claim

of

the

denial

U.S.

at

484-85.

of

We

constitutional

have

independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Delfino has not made the
requisite

showing.

Accordingly,

we

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

deny

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED